by Rep. Zach Wamp
posted July 8, 2008
) Rep. Zach Wamp |
And 1978 was also the year that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) was first passed. FISA is the law that allows our intelligence community to conduct surveillance, including tracking terrorist communications overseas to gather information on future threats, and it is critical to keep our nation safe from attack.
Today, fiber optic networks route many global communications through the United States. This makes it possible for foreign phone calls between operatives overseas to flow through U.S. facilities. Intelligence officials must first receive approval from the courts before intercepting these communications. Cumbersome and outdated legal processes prevent the intelligence community from acting quickly to conduct necessary surveillance of foreign targets.
Law was allowed to expire
Instead of working to update the FISA legislation, House Democrats let the law expire in February. Since then, we have spent more than 20 weeks without the 'real time' intelligence capability that has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the United States since September 11, 2001. During this time, terrorists have been able to talk to each other undetected through our own telecommunications infrastructure. It is a frightening prospect that we could be missing critical pieces of information because terrorists are using our own laws against us.
Listening to calls of known terrorists has played an important role in keeping Americans safe, and fortunately the U.S. House of Representatives came to a compromise that I supported to improve intelligence collection by updating FISA and closing the gaps created by evolving technology. This compromise balances the needs of our national security with our civil liberties. The House Majority and Minority leadership thankfully agreed to place the security of our country above politics to produce a better law. We now have an agreement on FISA that strengthens America's surveillance laws and allows our intelligence community to intercept terrorist communications, while continuing to protect the privacy rights of American citizens.
The 1978 TIME cover story on microchips also asserted that "practically any breakthrough in knowledge carries with it the possibility that it will be used for evil." Sadly, this has proven to be tragically true in many ways, including terrorists using telecommunications systems to coordinate attacks, cell phones to set off improvised explosive devices around the world and the Internet to spread their message of hate and recruit extremists.
Bringing FISA into the 21st Century gives our intelligence community a crucial tool in helping combat these real and immediate threats against our country and protects the American's civil liberties in the process. Now the U.S. Senate must take up this measure, and I urge them to do it quickly to make sure that we are doing everything possible to detect and prevent potential attacks on the American people.
Congressman Zach Wamp represents Tennessee's Third Congressional District and is a member of the Congressional Anti-Terrorism Caucus. This editorial appeared on The Tennessean editorial page on July 7.
* * *
I read Zach Wamp’s recent FISA editorial with shock and disappointment. I admire the Congressman, but the position outlined is nothing more than that - positioning. There is no candor in his address, and I’m let down by his dilution of the facts.
He states, “Instead of working to update the FISA legislation, House Democrats let the law expire in February.”
In truth, Congress passed a FISA extension that did not include telecom immunity. The President vetoed that bill. Since there were not enough votes to override the veto (you can thank Rep. Wamp for that), the bill did not pass. This sequence happened not once, but three times during the last eight months.
Wamp goes on to paint a very gloomy picture. “We have spent 20 weeks without the ‘real time’ intelligence capability that has helped prevent terrorist attacks in the U.S. since 9/11.”
But FISA did not expire in February. The PAA revisions to FISA did. Meanwhile, foreign surveillance has continued in this country, and we are still safe as a result. Ironically, the House voted in favor of a 21-day extension of the PAA in February. House Republicans (including Wamp) voted against the extension. Once again, the President vetoed the bill.
The Congressman argues that under existing FISA legislation, “Intelligence officers must first receive approval from the courts before intercepting foreign communications…Cumbersome and outdated legal processes prevent the intelligence community from acting quickly to conduct necessary surveillance.”
This would be a great argument if there were a shed of truth to it. Since FISA’s inception in 1978, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has been responsible for issuing warrants over foreign surveillance so as to be compliant with the Fourth Amendment. Mr. Wamp left out two key pieces of information about this judicial process. First, warrants are awarded retroactively. No one in the NSA is sitting around waiting for a warrant. That would be absurd. Second, only five warrants have been denied out of 23,000 requests since 1978. 99.9% of requests have been awarded. There is no “cumbersome legal process” when nearly every request is approved after the fact.
Contrary to Rep. Wamp’s insistence, Democrats are not trying to undermine America’s security by “letting FISA expire.” The conflict between Democrats and Republicans centers around ‘telecom immunity.’ Period. End of story. The President knows this. Congressman Wamp knows this. And every conservative pundit worth his salt knows this.
There are many good arguments for and against telecom immunity. If the Congressman wants to make his case on the real conflict with FISA, I welcome the opportunity to hear his views. But the voters of the Third Congressional District deserve better than fear-mongering and political “gotcha.”
David Morton
Chattanooga
* * *
As I read Rep. Wamp's post about the recent "compromise bill" addressing secret surveillance to root out plots against our nation, I was struck by the 23 times terrorist, attack, safety, frightening, security, evil, hate, extremists, threats and related terms were used. On the other hand, civil liberties and privacy were mentioned three times. It seems that if you can get the people to fear enough, then you can get them to go along with about anything.
There was a process in place for secret surveillance to occur. But now our politicians have agreed to give retroactive immunity to those businesses that broke the law in giving personal private information at the request of the government, their partners in crime. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for a country where the citizens can safely live their lives without fear of assault from enemies from overseas or from our own neighborhood. If I have legitimate evidence that my neighbor is plotting and planning to blow up my house, then there is a legal process to deal with that. But I don't tap his phone or search his home when he is away to see if there is a threat. First there has to be some evidence of a threat, then comes the legal process. Doesn't giving retroactive immunity say that whatever happens is OK, no matter what rights are violated in the process, as long as the end result is important?
Can I get retroactive immunity for speeding if I'm running late to work and I have an important meeting that people are depending on me for? Of course not. We do give emergency personnel bright flashing lights and sirens so they can break speed limits to get to someplace as quickly as possible in an emergency situation. We as a society anticipated that need, and put the tools and process in place to help them do their job, which we deemed important for the well being of all of us. We can do that with national security just the same. We have to put the necessary measures in place that our society deems appropriate, and then we must respect the rule and process of law.
We can't have a civil society when the government doesn't want to follow the law, and then on top of that they selectively choose private business they want to give permission to violate personal privacy. And they do this for what end– our personal safety and liberty and freedom? Come on. I understand that if we choose to drive as fast as we want, then we need to be prepared for the legal consequences. I understand that there are limitations to personal freedom for the mutual good of us all. But we have to know what those limitations are, and then we need to protect those freedoms that remain.
When our politician says "this [legislative] compromise balances the needs of our national security with our civil liberties," I just wish they would have the honesty to say that this legislation "compromises civil liberties for our national security." When they say we need to "make sure we are doing everything possible to detect and prevent potential attacks on the American people" and the score is 23-3 against civil liberty and privacy, keeping in mind that absolute power corrupts absolutely, with what we are seeing about the end justifying the means, we have to wonder what next from the government in order to keep us safe, and will we be willing to sacrifice it?
Man I love this country, but we can do better than be a people who meddle in all sorts of foreign affairs (threatening other countries with sanctions and bombs and taking sides leads to backlash, then the fear-o-meter here climbs ever higher) meanwhile shrinking personal privacy and liberties at home, and selectively choosing when to apply the rule of law. This nation was founded on principles of liberty and justice. If we are cavalier about those things, what will we be left with?
David Shinn
Hixson
dshinn27@gmail.com
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |